2000 (7) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. The issue involved in both these appeals is common. The appellants are manufacturers of steel products. They were covered by the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and paid duty according to their installed capacity and not based on actual production. The dispute has arisen on account of the changes made in the installed machinery. The appellants sought re-fixing o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anges, the previous year s production cannot be taken as a guide for ascertaining capacity of production or for fixing duty liability. He also submits that this issue remains covered in favour of the assessees under the order of the Tribunal in the case of Awadh Alloys (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 719 (Tribunal). 3. I have heard the learned DR also. 4. The Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, since the capacity has admittedly fallen, duty was required to be re-determined taking into account the revised capacity of production. Rule 5 of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is no bar for doing the same. The issue also remains covered in favour of the appellants under the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Appeals succeed and are allowed with consequent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X